MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2184743580

Factors that Influence Corporate Liquidity Holdings in Canada

2011· article· en· W2184743580 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Finance and Banking · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicWorking Capital and Financial Performance
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarket liquidityBusinessStock exchangeLiquidity riskLiquidity crisisAccounting liquidityWorking capitalDebtFinancial systemMonetary economicsAccountingFinanceEconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study is to find the factors that influence corporate liquidity holdings in Canada. This study also seeks to extend the studies of Isshaq and Bokpin [1] and Bruinshoofd and Kool [2] related to corporate liquidity management. A sample of 164 Canadian firms listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange for a period of 3 years (from 2008-2010) was selected. This study applied co-relational and non-experimental research design. The findings of this paper show that corporate liquidity holding is influenced by liquidity ratio, firm size, net working capital, near liquidity, short-term debt, investment, internationalization of firm, and industry. This study contributes to the literature on the factors that affect corporate liquidity holdings. The findings may be useful for financial managers, investors, and financial management consultants.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.950

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.174
Teacher spread0.136 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it